are people accepted with low LSAT scores mostly URMs?

also, it certainly doesnt show for any and every school, but someone posted a study on the schools in virginia, showing acceptance rate for URM's and non-urms with lower gpa's and lsat scores. also another item someone posted regarding the #'s for urm's at michigan.

anyway, i think this really is not supposed to be the issue of this thread and if not for a bunch of people who always seem to attack anyone dsicussing any issue that has the statement "urm's gain admittance with lower scores" then this thread could be discussing something rather productive. how to stand out with low #'s, outside if being a urm.

also, it certainly doesnt show for any and every school, but someone posted a study on the schools in virginia, showing acceptance rate for URM's and non-urms with lower gpa's and lsat scores. also another item someone posted regarding the #'s for urm's at michigan.

anyway, i think this really is not supposed to be the issue of this thread and if not for a bunch of people who always seem to attack anyone dsicussing any issue that has the statement "urm's gain admittance with lower scores" then this thread could be discussing something rather productive. how to stand out with low #'s, outside if being a urm.

It's just another way of honoring diversity at an institution of higher learning.

You ensure that kind of diversity by hiring:

a queer latina marxist

a disabled marxist

an Israel-denouncing jewish marxist

an african american marxist

a transgendered marxist

a curious-bi mr. sensitive white guy marxist

an asian-p-a marxist

It's actually pretty easy to make certain that a rainbow of heritages are honored at your institution. As long as the faculty is similarly diverse, the students will fall in line, and you can see the results of that 'education' right here on LSD.

Cultural capital is not 'just another way of honoring diversity...' The term 'cultural capital' is a social phenomenon that has been researched and written about by a broad range of economists, philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, etc. There is a wealth of knowledge about this topic and describing it in such an overly-simplistic and superficial way like the above poster did fails to do the concept justice.

Appeal to authority? Bravo!

Actually, my pious friend, I am quite certain that armies of marxist economists, philosophers, et al. have come up with any number of crackpot 'intellectual' schemes to justify their laughable yet pernicious social engineering, of which race preferences are the only the most visible example. Others include the idea that the reason there are far fewer women in the hard sciences is entirely due to social construction, or that little boys should be discouraged from playing with violent toys.

It all comes down to yet another project in the never-ending struggle to fortify the academic left's endless moral vanity, with little serious thought for what effect it has on the purported beneficiaries.

Yes, because all theorists of cultural capital are Marxists and none of them are 'right-wing.' They all have a politically motivated agenda (which is always left-wing and Marxist) for which they construct their theories. And theorists of social capital always support race and gender preferences. Cultural capital is nothing more than a pernicious Marxist agenda in disguise. Your attempt at debasing an entire social science concept truly illustrates your intellectual prowess and 'their' hidden attempt at social engineering.

BTW, your use of crackpot certainly lends credence to your otherwise incoherent response to my post. Your reckless style of argumentation will surely serve you well in law school and beyond.

don't turn up your nose at me with your snooty lecture on the definition of 'cultural capital" you ignorant whitie. Nice try diverting the discussion from the REAL ISSUES: Like I was saying, just because you lack cultural capital and therefore would be a relatively boring addition to a law school class dynamic, doesn't mean you should poo-pooh the adcomms. In case you still don't get it, LS are looking for unique individuals who contribute culturally, in the broad meaning of the term, and hence the cultural capital they bring to the table is of the utmost value. Blacks and HIspanics as well as others do that to a higher degree than your usual run-of-the-mill Anglo whitie. They bring fresh perspectives, critical points of view to bear regarding traditional legal postures, and the all-important diversity factor.

Stop hating on URMs cause of your own inadquacies and boring profiles.

don't turn up your nose at me with your snooty lecture on the definition of 'cultural capital" you ignorant whitie. Nice try diverting the discussion from the REAL ISSUES: Like I was saying, just because you lack cultural capital and therefore would be a relatively boring addition to a law school class dynamic, doesn't mean you should poo-pooh the adcomms. In case you still don't get it, LS are looking for unique individuals who contribute culturally, in the broad meaning of the term, and hence the cultural capital they bring to the table is of the utmost value. Blacks and HIspanics as well as others do that to a higher degree than your usual run-of-the-mill Anglo whitie. They bring fresh perspectives, critical points of view to bear regarding traditional legal postures, and the all-important diversity factor.

Stop hating on URMs cause of your own inadquacies and boring profiles.

Defensive much?

No one was hating on URMs here. And I fail to see how your being Latino automatically means that you are a better addition to a law school class than someone who's white. Not all white people think the same, ya know.

don't turn up your nose at me with your snooty lecture on the definition of 'cultural capital" you ignorant whitie. Nice try diverting the discussion from the REAL ISSUES: Like I was saying, just because you lack cultural capital and therefore would be a relatively boring addition to a law school class dynamic, doesn't mean you should poo-pooh the adcomms. In case you still don't get it, LS are looking for unique individuals who contribute culturally, in the broad meaning of the term, and hence the cultural capital they bring to the table is of the utmost value. Blacks and HIspanics as well as others do that to a higher degree than your usual run-of-the-mill Anglo whitie. They bring fresh perspectives, critical points of view to bear regarding traditional legal postures, and the all-important diversity factor.

Stop hating on URMs cause of your own inadquacies and boring profiles.

it's unfortunate that place everyone with light colored skin in a monolithic "run-of-the-mill Anglo whitie" group. your understanding of diversity appears to go no further than skin deep.

EDIT: but again, i'd wish this whole aspect of the thread would just end so i'll stop commenting on these types of posts no matter how much they annoy me (or at least i'll try to stop;)).

Logged

Jennaye

What I have found is that if you take a school (I am thinking right now of NYU), then have it list by descending LSAT scores, for example, when you get to the low end of the range - say, 165 and under - every single person who has been accepted with a 165 or less is an URM. I'm not saying that this is a scientific method, just a trend that I noticed. As I said, if you have data to contradict this, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Are you talking about trends on LSN? I've found the same thing (for Berkeley and UCLA)... which is why I started to freak out and convince myself that my chances of admission were far less than the numbers suggested. but then again, LSN is a very non-representative sample...

I consider it an assault, just like the assault on AA. Ignorance is the root of it. So I will defend, AND by any means necessary. So that means if I top up against you in LS, I would hide law books, steal your notes, or otherwise sabotage your success in any way I can.